Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It struck me that this is one of the least surprising seasons ever.
Boston, Houston, New York and Cleveland were expected to be dominant in the AL...and they are being dominant.
In the NL the Dodgers and Cubs were expected to win their divisions, with the Brewers, Diamonbacks and Rockies as the chief contenders behind them. That is very much what is happening.
The Phillies, Braves and A's were expected to make a leap forward after rebuilding terms, and all three are doing so. About the only failed expectation has been the Nationals cruising through the NL East....with their failure to do so making the improved Phillies and Braves into contenders rather than merely improved.
There is only one race of consequence taking place in the AL, that is between Seattle and Oakland for the second wild card spot.
Home runs are down a bit, strikeouts are down slightly, and the walk rate is the same as 2017.
2017: (plate appearances for event)
SO 4.6
BB 11.7
HR 30.3
2018: (plate appearances for event)
SO 4.5
BB 11.7
HR 33.6
Things are still trending for a game which more and more is generating results where the ball does not get put into play....strikeouts, walks and home runs. There is less action in the game and I would favor taking steps to reverse this trend.
What made him a Hall of Famer actually wasn't his play on the field, it was his becoming the singular symbol of honesty among his Black Sox teammates of 1919. Schalk was the most public and most vocal of the White Sox in denouncing the crooked players and was adopted by the media of the day as the symbol of all that was right and good with the game. Somehow his integrity got fused with his abilities as a ballplayer and sentiment overwhelmed sense when it came to enshrining him.
According to the BBWAA rules for election to the Hall of Fame:
Quote:
Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
Of course, it doesn't mean a player with those three traits but can't play the game should be in the Hall of Fame. But, being possibly one of the few players NOT involved with this huge scandal probably did exponentially increase his chances of being elected. Just wanted to point out that technically, the Hall of Fame is not only about the player on the field. If it was, Barry Bonds and Pete Rose (among others) would be in the Hall of Fame already.
As for Bryce Harper I sort of see it as an inverse sweepstakes. Who is going to be stuck with a ridiculously large contract for a player that will never live up to it? All long-term contracts operate like this, but usually there are a few really good years on the front end. I don't think that's going to happen with Harper. I think
When I look at Harper, I see Jacoby Ellsbury. I'll line up some seasons:
2008 Ellsbury 3.0 WAR | 2012 Harper 5.2
2009 Ellsbury 2.8 WAR | 2013 Harper 3.7 (small drop for both)
2011 Ellsbury 8.3 WAR | 2015 Harper 10.0 (career year)
2012 Ellsbury 0.9 WAR | 2016 Harper 1.5 (what happened?)
2013 Ellsbury 5.7 WAR | 2017 Harper 4.7 (return to form? is this the real player?)
2014 Ellsbury 3.6 WAR | 2018 Harper 0.3+(further drop - maybe THIS is the real player?)
2015+Ellsbury 2.0 WAR | 2019+ Harper (who knows really? maybe the real player is a 3.0 WAR player?)
The numbers don't line up but the drops/rises do. Of course players are going to have variance, but Ellsbury had a career year (8.3) followed up with a dud followed up with a year that was good enough to land a handsome contract. I doubt the Red Sox were sad to see him go either.
Personally, I think most fans should harbor a secret hope that their team spends their money elsewhere instead of on Harper. One would think that with his down season, his price and term would drop. A team might take a flyer on a 4-year deal. That isn't "forever."
According to the BBWAA rules for election to the Hall of Fame:
Of course, it doesn't mean a player with those three traits but can't play the game should be in the Hall of Fame. But, being possibly one of the few players NOT involved with this huge scandal probably did exponentially increase his chances of being elected. Just wanted to point out that technically, the Hall of Fame is not only about the player on the field. If it was, Barry Bonds and Pete Rose (among others) would be in the Hall of Fame already.
Can you identify another player who is in the Hall on such a basis? Isn't your idea a bit ingenuous? I believe that it is universally understood that the rules for enshrinement mean....he was a great player and he was a credit to the game, but were never intended to honor players simply on the basis of being a credit to the game even though they otherwise did not have the sort of career which would qualify them for the Hall.
Edie Collins was on that Black Sox team and as with Schalk, was one of the honest players. Collins is in the Hall for being a great second baseman, not for his integrity in 1919. Dickie Kerr was another member of that team, he went 2-0, 1.43 in the Series, but no one seems to think that he merited election because he didn't throw games.
The A's were down 10-2 to the Rangers in the 7th inning at Arlington. I didn't turn off the game or switch to watching the Mariners and Giants because the A's have been scoring a ton of runs in the late innings and have some impressive comeback wins.
Tonight was their biggest comeback yet. Four runs in the 7th, three more in the 8th, one in the ninth to tie and three in the 10th to win 13-10.
Oakland closes to within two games of Seattle, it will be 2.5 or 1.5 depending on how the Mariners do in SF. It is 3-3 in the 7th as I type.
Can you identify another player who is in the Hall on such a basis? Isn't your idea a bit ingenuous? I believe that it is universally understood that the rules for enshrinement mean....he was a great player and he was a credit to the game, but were never intended to honor players simply on the basis of being a credit to the game even though they otherwise did not have the sort of career which would qualify them for the Hall.
Edie Collins was on that Black Sox team and as with Schalk, was one of the honest players. Collins is in the Hall for being a great second baseman, not for his integrity in 1919. Dickie Kerr was another member of that team, he went 2-0, 1.43 in the Series, but no one seems to think that he merited election because he didn't throw games.
I'm not entirely sure what you are argument is. However, I found a guy similar to Schalk. His numbers aren't all that great (2.1 WAR per season) - never led the league in any major category. Pretty much a run of the mill player, even given the time (average season: 0.260/0.299/.316 60 RBI) which isn't far off from Schalk (.253/.340/.316 55 RBI). However, both had what we'd call in today's lingo, their "Aaron Boone moment." Something that they will always be remembered for, even if the rest of their careers were nothing to talk about.
I'm talking about Bill Mazeroski. Don't hate me Pirates fans. But given his offensive talents, he was vaulted to the Hall of Fame because of that walk-off World Series homerun. A singular moment in his career. He fits the same bill as Ray Schalk.
Bill Mazeroski, like Schalk, was voted in by the Veterans Committee and not on the regular BBWAA ballot. For the record, here's an example of who else was on the HoF ballot that never made it in - players with more WAR than Mazeroski ever accrued:
Dick Groat
Jim Maloney
Don Newcombe
Roger Maris
Curt Flood
Maury Wills
Al Dark
Gil Hodges
Key Boyer
Some of those names are commonly recognized, like Roger Maris. The rest are players might not have even had their numbers retired by their team. It isn't exactly the "who's who of 1960s baseball." I know WAR isn't the single indication of greatness, but if I recall from previous posts, you are a fan of WAR so I feel like it adds something to the conversation.
My point is, it didn't take long to find another player that is in the HoF, just like Schalk, that is not in there due to their baseball prowess. They are in there for what I'd call "legacy reasons." It adds to the narrative and tells a good story.
My point is, it didn't take long to find another player that is in the HoF, just like Schalk, that is not in there due to their baseball prowess. They are in there for what I'd call "legacy reasons." It adds to the narrative and tells a good story.
Maz is not in the Hall because of his integrity, he is in because:
A) He was the greatest defensive second baseman of all time and the 22nd best at any position...going by WAR, Of course the voters were not going by WAR when they voted, rather by his defensive reputation, which turned out to have a solid basis.
2. He hit the home run in the '60 WS......and we all know this was a factor despite the voting guidelines specifically stating that singular deeds within a game or season were not to be taken into account.
3. The point finally arrived where the Vet's committee was composed largely of Maz's contemporaries and when that happens, their buddies get over-enshrined.
In your post to which I first responded, you quoted BBWAA rules for election to the Hall, pointing out that they were allowed to use character as part of the criteria. However, your Maz example is not one where election was a consequence of character, rather it was a matter of the voter's overrating Maz's playing contributions. I asked for another example of someone who was in on the basis of character...the criteria you raised.
It has been a huge amount of fun being an A's fan these past five weeks. It isn't just that they are winning, it is the manner in which they are doing it. They have been falling behind early and coming on like gangbusters in the late innings...to the point where one begins expecting miracles each night.
Another one tonight, they fell behind the Rangers 5-1 after 6, and it was 5-4 in the top of the ninth, two outs, one on and Kris Davis down to his last strike. So of course he hits the ball 420 feet the opposite way into the second deck. Then Treinen strikes out the side in the bottom of the 9th.
Does anyone know where I could find data on which teams lead in scoring runs by innings? I'm pretty sure that the A's must be leading the league in 9th inning runs scored, and maybe the 7th and 8th as well.
It has been a huge amount of fun being an A's fan these past five weeks. It isn't just that they are winning, it is the manner in which they are doing it. They have been falling behind early and coming on like gangbusters in the late innings...to the point where one begins expecting miracles each night.
Another one tonight, they fell behind the Rangers 5-1 after 6, and it was 5-4 in the top of the ninth, two outs, one on and Kris Davis down to his last strike. So of course he hits the ball 420 feet the opposite way into the second deck. Then Treinen strikes out the side in the bottom of the 9th.
Does anyone know where I could find data on which teams lead in scoring runs by innings? I'm pretty sure that the A's must be leading the league in 9th inning runs scored, and maybe the 7th and 8th as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
